Loading ITAT cases…
241 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the 'charity amount' was an integral part of the purchase cost for the assessee, as it was compulsorily payable for the purchase of goods and VAT was paid on it. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB should be levied only on income that can be directly related to incriminating material found during the search. Voluntary admissions without such material may not qualify as 'undisclosed income' for penalty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the transportation charges were in the nature of a subsidy to promote horse racing and were not liable for TDS deduction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is only available in the year of acquisition and installation of new plant and machinery, not for subsequent years on capitalized forex losses.
The Tribunal held that constructing separate livable units on a single piece of land with a single door number and property tax assessment does not make the property ineligible for deduction under Section 54F. The assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction.
The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking proper consideration of the assessee's plea. The CIT(A) failed to investigate how the receipts related to the cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and failed to rectify defects or provide reasons for the delay. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for hearing and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that non-compete fees do not constitute an intangible asset for the purpose of claiming depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the 'charity amount' was an integral part of the purchase cost for the assessee, as it was compulsorily payable for the purchase of goods and VAT was paid on it. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the guideline value. Therefore, the PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 to set aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous at the time it was passed, and subsequent events or internal audit objections do not render it revisable.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be re-examined in light of the Advance Pricing Agreement entered into by the assessee. The issue of royalty payment was remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed depreciation as the assets were owned by the assessee and formed part of the block of assets. It also confirmed the allowance of coordination fees, finding them reasonable in relation to turnover and profitability, and that the TPO wrongly determined the ALP as Nil.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against an incorrect assessment order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with liberty for the assessee to file a fresh appeal against the correct order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, exceeding the interest-free advances made. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure should be restricted to the amount directly attributable to the utilization of borrowed funds for investments.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the assessee's own case. The High Court had previously held that the assessee's activities were charitable and that the amendment to Section 2(15) did not make its activities non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case. The Revenue was not entitled to argue that the trust was not carrying on charitable activity, as the High Court had already affirmed its charitable nature.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case. The Revenue was not entitled to argue that the trust was not carrying on charitable activity, as the High Court had already affirmed its charitable nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO regarding the closing stock valuation. The AO failed to establish that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes, making the disallowance of interest unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made by the AO regarding the closing stock valuation. The AO failed to establish that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes, making the disallowance of interest unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case. The Revenue was not entitled to argue that the trust was not carrying on charitable activity, as the High Court had already affirmed its charitable nature.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide convincing reasons and explain each day's delay. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found the explanation that the deposit was funded by cash saved by the assessee's parents to be a valid explanation for a non-resident. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2 Lacs was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's petition for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a quasi-judicial authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default unless authorized by statute. The CIT(A)'s order was not maintainable as it was a non-speaking order dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to meet the conditions for relaxation under Section 271AAA(2) as the admitted undisclosed income was not offered for tax in the return. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was rightly confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had already quashed the assessments under Section 153A due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the revision orders passed under Section 263 became inoperative.
The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had already quashed the assessments under Section 153A due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the revision orders passed under Section 263 became inoperative.
The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had already quashed the assessments under Section 153A due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the revision orders passed under Section 263 became inoperative.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide belief and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee followed a consistent method for stock valuation based on purchase price, and the AO's estimation was not justified. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the cash credits, discharging the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that lease payments made by the lessee are allowable as revenue expenditure. Ownership of the leased assets remained with the lessor, entitling only the lessor to claim depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the sale agreement was declared null and void by the civil court and further supported by an order from the Special Tahsildhar (land acquisition). Therefore, the amount could not be considered as received by the assessee and taxed as unaccounted money.
The Tribunal held that the issue stood covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. V/s ITO. The Court had held that various enactments, including the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, do not distinguish between a co-operative society engaged in banking business and a co-operative bank. Crucially, the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2015, which removed the exemption for co-operative banks from TDS on interest payments to members, was held to be prospective, applicable only from 01.06.2015. Therefore, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee was not liable for TDS on interest paid to its members. The Tribunal found no fault with the impugned order of the CIT(A) and ordered accordingly. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuineness for the sub-contract expenses, including declarations by sub-contractors and TDS compliance. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10% was upheld.
The Tribunal held that giving corporate guarantees was part of the assessee's business as per its Memorandum of Association and that the payment made was incidental to its business, thus allowing it as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the ownership of the leased assets remained with the lessor, and the lease payments made by the assessee as lessee are allowable as revenue expenditure. Any depreciation claimed by the assessee on these lease assets would be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the surplus funds transferred by the assessee were not its income, as they were collected and passed on to other entities on their behalf, akin to an amount in trust. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that indirect costs like advertisement and consultancy, which are in the nature of selling costs and professional costs, could not be attributed to a specific project and were period costs. The assessee's treatment of these as period costs, in line with the ICAI guidance note, was found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee followed a consistent method for stock valuation based on purchase price, and the AO's estimation was not justified. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the cash credits, discharging the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own prior decisions and various High Court judgments. It affirmed that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective, and therefore, for the assessment year in question, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The tribunal held that payments to the managing director were adjustments to earlier advances and not disallowable under Section 40A(3). Routine building maintenance on a leased property was deemed revenue expenditure. For other disallowed expenses, a 10% disallowance was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the legal heir to rectify the defects rather than dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Mere technical lapses should not prevent a taxpayer from seeking justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's director being involved in insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the additional evidence (confirmation letters) submitted by the assessee and re-adjudicate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 153C as the seized material did not pertain to the assessment year in question and there was no other incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.